Multi-functional wood preservatives based on a borate/fatty acid combination

ABSTRACT

Wood preservatives, methods for protecting wood and wood-based products and/or structures utilizing the preservatives, and treated wood and wood-based articles and/or structures incorporating the preservatives are described. Methods are also provided for remediating structures already infected with mold. The subject wood preservative formulation includes a borate compound and a fatty acid. The addition of an emulsifier to the formulation further facilitates application of the treatment. The combination of a borate compound and fatty acid combination typically provide a synergistic effect compared to the additive result provided by the combination&#39;s individual components.

CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation application that claims priority toand the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/222,419, entitled“MULTI-FUNCTIONAL WOOD PRESERVATIVES BASED ON A BORATE/FATTY ACIDCOMBINATION,” which was filed on Aug. 21, 2011, claiming priority toU.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/378,524, filed Aug. 31, 2010.The subject application claims priority to application Ser. No.13/222,419 and to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/378,524,the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND The Problem

Throughout recorded history wood and wood-based materials have providedan available and versatile construction material that can be cut,shaped, and fastened together to make a variety of useful structures.The life of such structures has generally depended on the builder'sability, the vagaries of nature, and the extent to which the structurewas subject to damage by insects and decay. This application neitherdeals with the builder's skill or the vagaries of nature, but isconcerned with providing safe and effective protection of treated woodand wood products from insect and fungal damage.

The early and current insecticides and fungicides utilized to protectwood from attack by insects and fungi are effective, but many can betoxic and unsuitable for use in modern homes sealed and insulated toreduce the exchange of hot or cold air from outside. In addition toconcerns for exposure to insecticides and fungicides in modern homes,human health can also be adversely affected by mold contaminants, inaddition to the wood preservatives meant to prevent wood disease such asmold and decay fungi. Humans are exposed constantly to molds in theenvironment, both indoors and outdoors. Problems arise when the immunesystem is suppressed (HIV infection, cancer treatment), over-responsive(allergy) or when exposures are exceedingly high (irritation andmycotoxin effects). Many people are allergic to molds, and allergicresponses include hay fever and asthma. Certain molds such asStachybotrys chartarum (or atra), and various species of Aspergillus,Fusarium and Penicillium produce mycotoxins or volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) that can be irritating when present in highconcentrations and on occasion, can be quite toxic to humans andanimals. Commonly, mold infestations and resulting health issues havebeen associated with building materials particularly wood andcellulose-based products. Stachybotrys is most commonly associated withvery wet conditions (water activity level a_(w) of 1.0) on celluloseproducts, such as the paper face of gypsum board, whereas Penicillium,Aspergillus, and Cladisporium sp. are associated with wood and woodproducts exposed to humidity conditions lower than saturation. Minimumwater activity levels (a_(w)) are reported as 0.8 for Aspergillus andPenicillium or lower for some mold fungi.

Each year, billions of board feet of lumber are sold as unseasoned orgreen products and are allowed to dry naturally, usually during theframing stages of building a house. Mills can reduce the risk of moldand stain on green lumber by applying short term anti-stain or sap staintreatments which are thin coatings of fungicides on the wood surface.However, anti-sapstain treatments are usually reserved for select lumberproducts or wood destined for exportation. These fungicides are appliedby dipping entire bundles of lumber into a treatment solution or byspraying all the primary surfaces of individual boards. Anti-sapstainchemicals, such as NP-1, are designed to provide a microscopic barrieragainst fungal attack that lasts for three to six months, depending onthe chemical, the concentration used, the wood species and the climaticconditions. Because these fungicide treatments are not designed forlong-term protection of wood products, mold infestation can readilyoccur if moisture is reintroduced beyond the period of time thetreatment is effective.

Because of the recent increase in mold mitigation claims, as well asincreased public awareness about indoor air quality (IAQ), the need forimproved protection of cellulose-based building materials from moldinfestations has been hastened. Mold claims, including pre- andpost-construction, exceeded $3.0 billion in the U.S. in 2002, more thandouble the $1.3 billion paid in the previous year. While mold fungi donot cause structural damage to wood, the presence of mold is indicativeof inadequate surface drying of condensation, chronic high humidity, orwater intrusion. Chronic moisture issues can result in structural damagewhich often begins with growth of mold fungi followed by presence ofdecay fungi (i.e., brown-rot and white-rot fungi). Eventually, chronicmoisture problems and decayed wood can attract other pests such astermites.

Spores from mold fungi can be particularly problematic not only as humanand animal allergens but also due to their recalcitrance to chemicalremediation. Among the three primary wood infestations (termite attack,mold and decay fungi), spores from mold fungi appear to be the mostresistant to chemical treatments; hence, mold spores are more difficultto suppress and control. Excess moisture in existing structures can becaused by a number of factors including, but not limited to, flaweddesign, poor construction practices or maintenance, poor site drainage,leaky roofs/plumbing, inadequate insulation, improper ventilation, etc.

Regardless of how meticulous the maintenance on a building is, nearlyevery structure will encounter a moisture event that may be as obviousas flooding or as subtle as a chronic leak inside a wall that onlybecomes apparent in advanced stages of biological activity. Because eventhe best moisture management practices cannot prevent eventual moistureintrusion, economical biocides that are suitable for interior use areneeded. In addition to being effective against mold fungi, they must benontoxic to occupants, nonvolatile, environmentally acceptable, safe tohandle, and possess low water solubility.

Surface treatment of dimension lumber or engineered products with moldinhibitors would add an additional layer of protection for in-servicewood products and lessen the impact of current indoor air qualityissues. This strategy is being used to some degree in the manufacture ofgypsum board and oriented strand board. Clausen and Yang (2003)evaluated acids, phenolic compounds (antioxidants), pharmaceuticals,bio-preservatives, wood preservatives, food preservatives, and plantextractives for mold inhibitory properties.

Early and Current Solutions

Wood preservation for protection of home and other structures in theUnited States dates as early as the 17^(th) century. Since then and evenmore recently, a key driver in the evolution of new wood preservativesreplacing existing products is human health. Public perception relatedto product safety for citizens and the environment has greatlyinfluenced state and federal policy decisions and in turn, industry'simpetus to develop alternate products.

In the early 1700s use of mercuric chloride began, leading to coal-tarcreosote in the mid-1800s and in the 1940s, the development of chromatedcopper arsenate (CCA). Arsenic and hexavalent chromium, components ofCCA, are recognized as known human carcinogens. Hexavalent chromium isclassified as a human carcinogen based on excess lung cancer found inheavily exposed workers through inhalation in chromium plating andchromate and chromate pigment production. The literature is abundantwith evidence of carcinogenicity for both arsenic and chromium. Due tosocietal perception together with increased technology development,product evolution towards safer choices for mold, decay and termiteprotection has accelerated over the last half century and probably moreso in the last 10 years.

Nearly 60 years ago, Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) in Madisoncharacterized ideal properties for a good wood preservative. Althoughthe list has expanded, fundamentals given in the 1950s remain thesame: 1) “poisonous to wood-destroying fungi”, 2) “able to penetratewood thoroughly”, 3) “cost, availability and uniformity will largelydetermine its usefulness”, 4) non-corrosive to metal and 5) “must not bea dangerous poison to men and animals”; the latter criteria has receivedmore recent attention and hence, prompted changes in the woodpreservation industry.

Public concern over leaching of arsenic from CCA-treated wood intowaterways finally resulted in its virtual elimination by the US EPA (USEnvironmental Protection Agency) for residential uses such as decks,picnic tables, fencing, patios, play-structures, etc. . . . . Accordingto industry observers, CCA production has dropped by 80% since 2003 andbeen replaced by ammoniacal copper quat ACQ and copper azole CA.Hingston, J. A. (2001) and other researchers provided scientificevidence that leachate bioaccumulation and toxicity could produce asignificant source of metals in the aquatic environment. Currently, CCAapplications in the U.S. are limited; primarily on marine pilings,telephone poles, railroad ties, etc. Nevertheless, CCA continues to beused in substantial volumes. For example, nearly 600 million cubic feetof wood poles (˜4 million poles) are treated each year, a continuingconcern per leaching of copper and arsenic as well as the issue of poledisposal. In most other major, industrialized countries, CCA use isseverely restricted.

A search for arsenic-free products has been initiated by the major woodpreservative manufacturers. New copper-based systems emerged, combiningsalts or oxides of copper and sometimes, zinc, iron, aluminum or boronwith various organic, active ingredients used as fungicides inagriculture. Ammoniacal copper quat or alkaline copper quaternaryammonium compounds (ACQ-A, B, C), amine copper quat (ACQ-D), and copperazole (CA) such as copper boron azole-Type A (CBA-A) were touted aslower toxicity preservatives relative to CCA and were standardized bythe American Wood Protection Association (AWPA). ACQ-A was deleted in2000 due to lack of use. Although performance in many cases matched CCA,cost of ACQ, for example, was much higher than CCA and more corrosive onmetal.

Due to high aquatic toxicity, cost, corrosivity and other issues, thecopper-based generation of new preservatives has experiencedenvironmental pressure in certain areas of the world (Freeman, M. H., etal. 2003, Evans, P. 2003). Although copper preservatives are viewed asthe probable dominant water-based treatments for the near term, manybelieve that all-organic biocides composed of safer fungicide (organic)moieties will represent the next generation of products (Freeman, M. H.,et al. 2003, Evans, P. 2003). Evans (2003) mentions ongoing interest inuse of natural active compounds such as salicylic acid, cypress pine oiland plant alkaloids (i.e., Neem tree extract). Yang (2006), afterscreening seven essential oils as candidate moldicides, found that thymeand geranium Egyptian oil inhibited all test fungi for 22 weeks. SeveralEuropean countries may require totally organic 3rd generation systemswhere non-metallic preservatives for residential applications mayeventually be mandated in the United States (Schultz, T. P. and D. D.Nicholas. 2003).

Problems with Current Solutions

The existing issues with copper-organic preservatives are summarizedbelow.

-   -   More expensive than CCA    -   Fungal resistance and tolerance to copper by decay fungi    -   Potential leaching of copper-organics: loss of preservative to        environment, landfill issues    -   Aquatic toxicity of copper at higher concentrations    -   Acute and chronic toxicities of many current organic fungicides        in copper-based preservatives    -   Corrosion issues for fasteners and other metallic objects in        contact with copper-based preservatives    -   Biocide depletion

Higher Costs:

2^(nd) generation ammoniacal/amine copper systems cost 2-4 times morethan CCA. A copper-based preservative's organic biocide component,adopted from agricultural fungicides, can be 10-30 fold more expensiveper pound than inorganic preservatives.

Resistance/Tolerance:

Unlike other microbes, fungi (several brown-rot decay fungi) can beextremely tolerant of toxic metals at high concentrations using adiverse array of cellular mechanisms to acclimate to copper. Forexample, copper's biological availability can be reduced via complex ofcopper by fungal proteins and/or precipitation of copper as copperoxalate

Copper and Organic Fungicide Leachates:

A limiting feature of copper-rich biocides such as amine-copperpreservatives is their leachability where up to 35% of copper can belost (Waldron et al. 2003). Copper levels in ACQ and CA-B are severaltimes higher than in CCA. Moreover, the newer copper biocides do nothave an oxidant (as does CCA) to facilitate copper fixation in wood.

An important study by Dubey (2006) determined potential groundwatercontamination from deck runoffs into soil columns and compared riskfactors of various preservative leachates in different soil types.Alkaline copper quaternary ammonium (ACQ), compared to CCA, had almost10 times higher chance of exceeding soil cleanup target level forcopper. That is, copper concentrations in the CCA deck runoff sampleswere about 10-fold less than concentrations measured from ACQ-treatedwood (Dubey, 2006).

In 2006, a micronized (micrometer-size pieces of copper) copper quatproduct (MCQ) was introduced which was reported to lessen copperleaching compared to soluble copper used in ACQ made by Viance andothers. Copper preservatives used in North America may have limitationson use and even greater restrictions are expected on use and disposal inthe future.

Aquatic Toxicity by Copper and Organic Biocides:

Restriction of copper use in agriculture is based on the environmentalimpact caused by using large amounts of copper to obtain sufficientpathogen control. Because copper and sulfur compounds are not aseffective as synthetic fungicides, overuse can be common, raisingenvironmental concerns. Similar issues can exist with high amounts ofcopper applied as wood preservatives where metal leachates canpotentially reach streams and rivers. Copper has very high aquatictoxicity and can also affect algae and plant life. Because of copper'spotential to leach from treated wood and copper's aquatic toxicity, andother mentioned issues, a search for replacements for copper-basedpreservatives is underway.

Organic biocides applied as wood preservatives such as DDAC and otherfungicides (chlorothalonil, propiconazole and 3-Iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate or IPBC) are also highly toxic to aquatic organisms includingzooplankton and fish. DDAC and azole compounds are formulated withcopper to prepare copper quats and azole preservatives. IPBC,propiconazole, tebuconazole and chlorothalonil are recognized as knownor probable groundwater contaminants while chlorothalonil, tebuconazoleand propiconazole have issues as chronic toxins; i.e., probable orpossible carcinogens.

Human and Animal Toxicity of Fungicide Organics:

Certain agricultural fungicides, combined with copper compounds (orother active ingredients) used as wood preservatives, are toxic,synthetic chemicals. A majority of the agricultural fungicides have highchronic toxicity, with some suspected as human carcinogens and others,toxic to birds, fish and beneficial insects. Chlorothalonil, IPBC andDDAC have high acute toxicity. As mentioned earlier, DDAC and otherorganic fungicides such as chlorothalonil, tebuconazole, propiconazoleand IPBC are highly toxic to numerous aquatic organisms. Some of thesefungicides may not be re-registered or their use severely restrictedunder the Food Quality Protection Act. Selected fungicide products havebeen given the highest priority for tolerance reassessment by the EPA.

The recently enacted Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program or EDSPexamines potential effects of pesticide chemicals on the endocrinesystem and may eliminate use of selected fungicides. Congress,influenced by compelling evidence that endocrine systems of wildlife areaffected by chemical contaminants, required the EPA initiate EDSP.Propiconazole, tebuconazole and chlorothalonil, as active ingredients,are on the EPA's Final List of Tier 1 trials for immediate testing andreview. All three fungicides are currently used in wood preservativeproducts as “next generation preservatives” replacing CCA. Azolecompounds such as propiconazole and tebuconazole were already suspectedto be endocrine disruptors. If EDSP Tier 1 and 2 trials show that apesticide is problematic, the pesticide product (s), whether as apesticide for plant protection or as a wood preservative, could beseverely restricted in use or its registration revoked. Nearly allfungicides are synthetic compounds manufactured from petroleumprecursors. The development of new and effective pesticides obtainedfrom renewable feed-stocks rather than from petrochemicals is in thepublic interest.

Enhanced Corrosion by Copper Preservatives:

Replacement of CCA with copper-based formulations such as alkalinecopper quaternary (ACQ), ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA) andcopper azoles (CA) can corrode nails, screws and other metal fastenersespecially in residential applications. ACQ, ACZA and CA are reported tobe more corrosive to galvanic metal connectors than CCA.

Biocide Depletion:

Photolytic and bacterial degradation of copper-based preservatives iswell-known. Whereas azoles such as tebuconazole and propiconazole areattacked by a number of bacterial and fungal strains, Pseudomonasspecies are known to readily degrade QACs, IPBC and chlorothalonil.Metals often required by bacterial or fungal oxidation of organicbiocides could possibly be bound or sequestered using natural chelatorssuch as phytic acid or oligomers of polylactic acid (PLA). PLA is easilyprepared by self-condensation of lactic acid monomers in a concentratedsolution (>95%, g/v) using rotary evaporation. Phytic acid, a naturalconstituent of many plants and animals, is known to function inphosphate metabolism and can efficiently chelate heavy metals.

Current Needs:

What is needed is a replacement of copper-based preservatives such asalkaline copper quaternary ammonium compounds or ACQ and copper azoles(CA) (Evans, P. 2003, Freeman, M. H., et al. 2003). Protection againstinsect infestations such as termites and carpenter ants is similarlyimportant for a suitable wood preservative. Formosan termite isestimated at a >$2 billion problem in southern coastal areas of the U.S.A wood preservative replacement should protect against damage from bothmicrobes and insects. Most professionals expect that totally-organicpreservatives for U.S. residential applications will be required in thenear future. Preferred preservatives will be derived from non-petroleumsources. A suitable wood preservative should, in addition to protectingwood and wood-based products from insect and fungal attack (both rottingfungi and mold fungi), be safe to human and animal health and notcontaminate the environment during a structure's useful life or afterdisposal. In order to be useful for indoor and outdoor construction,such a wood preservative must resist leaching when exposed to repeatedcontact with water. The present disclosure addresses these needs.

REFERENCES

-   Clausen, C. A. and F. Green. 2003. Oxalic Overproduction by    Copper-Tolerant Brown-rot Basidiomycetes on Southern Yellow Pine    Treated with Copper-based Preservatives. International    Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 51 (2):139-144.-   Dubey, B. Townsend, T. and H. Solo-Gabriele. 2006 Comparison of    Relative Risks from Preservative Components in Soil Below Structures    Made of CCA-, ACQ-, CBA- and DOT (Envirosafe)-Treated Wood. Wood    Protection 2006. M. H. Barnes, Ed. Forest Products Society, Madison,    Wis. Page 235-246.-   Evans, P. 2003. Emerging Technologies in Wood Protection. Forest    Products Journal. 53:1.-   Freeman, M. H.; Shupe, Todd F.; Vlosky, Richard P.;    Barnes, H. M. 2003. Past, Present and Future of the Wood    Preservation Industry: Wood is a Renewable Natural Resource that    Typically is Preservative Treated to Ensure Structural Integrity in    Many Exterior Applications. Forest Products Journal. Oct. 1, 2003.-   Hingston, J. A., Collins, C. D., Murphy, R. J. and J. N.    Lester. 2001. Leaching of Chromated Copper Arsenate Wood    Preservatives: A Review. Environmental Pollution. Vol 111, Issue 1,    January 2001. Pages 53-66.-   Schultz, T. P. and D. D. Nicholas. 2003. A Brief Overview of    Non-Arsenical Wood Preservative Systems. (Chapter 26, 420-432). In:    Wood Deterioration and Preservation; Advances in our Changing World.    (B. Goodell, D. D. Nicholas, and T. P. Schultz, Editors.) ACS,    Washington, D. C.-   Waldron, Y. T., Ung, Y. T. And P. A. Cooper. 2003. Leaching of    Inorganic Wood Preservatives-Investigating the Relationship Between    Leachability, Dissociation Characteristics and Long-term Leaching    Potentials. Doc. No. IRG/WP 03-50199. 34^(th) Annual Meeting of    International Research Group on Wood Preservation.-   Yang, V. and C. A. Clausen. 2006. Screening of Antifungal Activities    of Essential Oils on Wood. Wood Protection 2006. M. H. Barnes, Ed.    Forest Products Society, Madison, Wis. Page 384.

SUMMARY

As will become apparent from the following discussion, the presentdisclosure provides compositions capable of protecting wood andwood-based materials from damage caused by insects, decay fungi, andmold fungi. The compositions are effective for interior and exteriorapplications, including applications with periodic or continuingexposure to water. In addition, methods for the incorporation of thecompositions into wood or a wood-based product are described. Finally,treated wood-based articles are described which are capable of resistingdamage caused by insects, decay fungi, and mold fungi. The treatedwood-based articles do not include toxic materials and can be utilizedfor interior and exterior applications.

As used herein, the following terms have the meanings described below. Aborate compound refers to a compound containing boron oxoanions orsubstituted boron oxoanions. Examples of borates include, but are notlimited to salts of oxoanions such as for example, disodium octaboratetetrahydrate (DOT), boric acid, and a boronic acid (such as phenylboronics). A fatty acid includes a carboxylic acid having between 5 and22 carbon atoms. Additional borate salts which can be incorporated withfatty acids include, but are not limited to, zinc borate, sodiumtetraborate, disodium tetraborate, calcium metaborate, borate esters(such as with 1,2 or 1,3 diols or 1,3,5 triols). Fatty acids can beutilized in their acid form or as a salt. The ammonium salt of fattyacids is a particularly useful fatty acid salt.

A wood product or wood article refers to a product made with wood orthat includes wood or a wood-derived product such as cellulose or aproduct containing cellulose. A wood product can be constructed ofsubstantial material that is not a wood product or otherwise derivedfrom wood, provided at least a portion of the product is wood-based orwood-derived. One example of such a wood-based or wood-derived productis gypsum board, primarily constructed from gypsum, but having acellulose outer layer.

A first aspect of the present disclosure involves a composition thatprotects wood products and wood-based products against insects, decayfungi, and mold fungi in both interior and exterior applications. Thecomposition is particularly useful in protecting treated wood productsand wood-based products which are subject to repeated contact withwater. The composition includes a borate compound, a fatty acid, and anemulsifier, where for the relationship between the amounts of boratecompound and fatty acid is defined by the ratio of [boratecompound]:[fatty acid] and the ratio can range from about 1:1000 toabout 1000:1. For preferred compositions the ratio ranges from about1:25 to about 10:1. For more preferred compositions the ratio rangesfrom about 1:15 to about 8:1. Finally, for the most preferredcompositions, the ratio ranges from about 1:5 to about 4:1.

A further aspect of the present disclosure involves compositions whichare capable of protecting wood products against insects, decay fungi,and mold fungi in interior and exterior applications and which include aborate compound, a fatty acid, and an emulsifier. For thesecompositions, the borate compound is selected from the group consistingof DOT, boric acid, a boronic acid, and combinations thereof.

A still further aspect of the present disclosure involves a method forprotecting wood or a wood product from insects, decay fungi, and moldfungi. The method involves the steps of: (a) providing a wood product;(b) providing a borate compound; (c) providing a fatty acid; and (c)incorporating the borate compound and the fatty acid into the woodproduct. The step of incorporating can involve contacting the woodproduct with one or more formulations containing the borate and thefatty acid in a process involving soaking, dipping, brushing, spraying,diffusion, injection, vacuum, vacuum/pressure treatments or by paintingor application of a coating material containing the fatty acid andborate compound. In addition, incorporating can include the inclusion ofthe composition into a wood-based article or wood composite such asparticle board or oriented strand board during the article'smanufacture. The incorporating step can be carried out at reducedpressure, atmospheric pressure, or at elevated pressure. For preferredmethods, providing a borate compound involves providing a compoundselected from the group consisting of DOT, boric acid, a boronic acid,and a combination thereof. Additionally, for further preferred methods,providing a fatty acid involves providing a compound selected from thegroup of caprylic acid, capric acid, heptanoic acid, pelargonic acid,and a combination thereof.

A still further aspect of the present disclosure involves a wood-basedarticle including a borate compound and a fatty acid, included forpreservation purposes; the treated article being capable of resistingattack by insects, decay fungi, and mold fungi. Preferred wood-basedarticles include a borate compound selected from the group consisting ofDOT, boric acid, a boronic acid and a combination thereof. Such treatedarticles are capable of resisting attack in a wet environment afterrepeated exposures to water. Such preferred treated articles canadditionally include a fatty acid selected from the group consisting ofcaprylic acid, capric acid, pelargonic acid, heptanoic acid and acombination thereof.

The combination of a borate and fatty acid can be applied as a remedial,restorative treatment solution for wood structures or wood compositescontaminated with wood disease. Specifically, the remedial solution canbe used as a rinse, spray, dip, brush or other application to inhibit,suppress and/or kill a) mold and decay fungi and their spores and/or b)insects such as termites and carpenter ants.

Other components can be added to the formulations described above toenhance one or more efficacies. For example, further moldicideenhancement can be obtained with the addition of one or more essentialoils selected from the group consisting of thyme, camphor, clove,orange, geranium and dill weed.

Finally, a further aspect of the present disclosure includes acomposition that includes a fatty acid, sorbic acid and an emulsifier.The composition, with or without the addition of a borate compound, hasfungicidal properties and insecticidal properties and is useful forpreserving a wood based article.

DESCRIPTION

For the purposes of promoting an understanding of the presentdisclosure, references will now be made to the embodiments illustratedand specific language will be used to describe the same. It willnevertheless be understood that no limitation of the scope of what isclaimed is thereby intended, such alterations and further modificationsand such further applications of the principles thereof as illustratedtherein being contemplated as would normally occur to one skilled in theart to which the disclosure relates.

Certain borates are readily available, well known, and naturallyoccurring salts mined in saline deposits from Death Valley and Chile andhave been used for decades as laundry additives and as a naturalinsecticide. Borate treated wood was initially developed in New Zealand,to resist insect damage. Borate treated wood entered the U.S.(mid-1990s) due to the success of disodium octaborate tetrahydrate(DOT)-pressure treated wood in Hawaii for controlling termites. Afterdecades of use in Hawaii, borate treatments, under highly demanding testconditions, were found to be effective against decay fungi and wooddestroying insects in indoor residential applications. Moreover, insectsdo not appear to have tolerance or develop resistance to borate.

The use of DOT for treating wood is now worldwide. The U.S., Australiaand South Africa borates are commonly used for timber framedconstructions. The natural mineral has a superb record of human(extremely low mammalian toxicity) and aquatic safety, is veryinexpensive and does not corrode metal (Schultz, T. P. and D. D.Nicholas. 2003). DOT is relatively soluble in water and hence, has goodpenetration of all major structural lumber species in the U.S. Moreover,DOT treatments are compliant with major building codes and as is thecase for borate compounds, non-corrosive to most metal nails, screws andfasteners.

However, borate leaching can occur with exposure to water, thusrestricting the bulk of current borate treatments to indoorconstruction. As a result, borate treated lumber exposed to rainfall(leaching conditions) over time loses substantial amounts of the borate,reducing its effectiveness as a preservative. In addition, although DOThas demonstrated capability in combating insects and decay fungi, it hasvery limited function as a moldicide. In addition, current efforts tofix borates into a wood article have often resulted in a loss ofactivity.

In contrast, the present disclosure discloses specific formulationscontaining a fatty acid/borate combination that surprisingly providesexcellent protection against insect damage, decay fungi and mold fungifor both leached and un-leached southern yellow pine. In addition, thecombination's effectiveness is surprisingly greater than the additiveeffect of a fatty acid and a borate and the combination surprisinglyresists leaching when exposed to an outdoor environment in which thetreated wood product is repeatedly exposed to water. Suitable treatmentmethods include all conventional methods of treatment including, but notlimited to, both dip and pressure treatment. Wood products andcomposites such as plywood, hardwood, oriented strand board, ceilingtile and wallboard treated in this manner resist attack by mold anddecay fungi as well insect infestation.

One aspect of the present disclosure involves multi-functional fattyacid/borate combinations effective against insects and target wooddisease pathogens. Surprisingly, the fatty acid/borate combination issubstantially retained in the treated wood and/or cellulose containingproduct. That is, sufficient amounts of fatty acid/borate, as activeingredients for control of wood disease, remain in treated wood afterrepeated and prolonged exposure to water. Leached and unleached woodcontaining the fatty acid/borate combination has substantially the sameinsecticidal/fungicidal activity as an unleached wood sample making thecombination suitable for exterior residential applications havingrepeated contact with water. The fatty acid/borate combination providescost effective and safe performance required by the constructionindustry and the public's environmental and health concerns. Finally, inproviding superior performance, the fatty acid/borate combinationsexhibit an unexpected synergistic effect beyond any expected additiveeffects.

The formulation's components can be introduced into a wood product or awood-derived product in serial fashion or combined into a singleformulation incorporated in a single step, or can be physicallyincorporated into wood-based materials during manufacture. Methods oftreatment can involve any known manner of incorporation and specificallycan involve soaking, dipping, brushing, spraying, diffusion, injection,vacuum or vacuum/pressure treatments. The treatment method can becarried out at reduced pressure, atmospheric pressure, or at elevatedpressure.

EXAMPLES

The examples which follow are illustrative and are not intended to limitthe use or method of application for the novel compositions.

Example 1

Two treatments solutions were prepared for testing against termites. Thefirst treatment solution was an emulsion including 2% C-9 (pelargonicacid), 0.056% unmodified lecithin #750, 0.18% boric acid, 0.08% coppergluconate, 0.034% SDS, and 1.52% glycerol (Table 1, treatment 1-1). Thesecond treatment solution (treatment (1-3) contained 0.18% (g/v) ofboric acid and 1.52% glycerol. Both solutions contained the same percentamounts of boric acid and glycerol. Blocks were treated (5 blockreplicates) with the two solutions. Following treatment, the treatedblocks and untreated blocks were subjected to a no-choice test againsttermites (AWPA Standard E1-09, 2009*). The test results illustratedbelow in Table 1 illustrate that a C-9 (pelargonic acid)/boric acidformulation (1-1), caused 100% termite morbidity and only a 1.4% loss ofblock weight at 28 days. The second formulation (1-3) evaluated effectsof only boric acid at 0.18% (g/v) in glycerol. Morbidity and blockweight loss was 49.8 and 7.6%, respectively, at 28 days. The combinationcontaining C-9 and boric acid (1-1) provided increased termiticidalactivity over 0.18% boric acid, alone (1-3). Untreated or control blocks(1-2, 1-4) provided only coincidental termite mortality and weightlosses ranging from 16-25%.

TABLE 1 Termiticide Assay* Weight Loss of Termite Mortality Treated(%)** (Days Blocks** (Days Composition after infestation) afterinfestation) Treatments: 6-7 11-12 28 28 1-1 C-9 formulation with 5.5 86100 1.4 glycerol/boric acid (solution #1) 1-2 Control (untreated) 0 03.5 16 1-3 Glycerol/boric acid 4 29 49.8 7.6 (solution #2) 1-4 Control(untreated) 0 0 1.5 24.8 *American Wood Protection Association. 2009.Standard Method for Laboratory Evaluation to Determine Resistance toSubterranean Termites E1-09. In: American Wood Protection AssociationBook of Standards. Birmingham, Alabama, pp. 347-355. **Termitemortality, weight loss: expressed as averages (%) based on 5 replicateblocks/treatment

Example 2

A stock formulation (“C8 only”) was prepared containing 50% C8, 20% PE1198 (a phosphate ester emulsifier available from Huntsman Chemical),10% L-lactic, 20% mineral oil. Samples of the stock solution werediluted with water to provide a testing formulation having 8% stockformulation, v/v, in water. A disodium octaborate tetrahydrate or DOTsolution (“DOT only”) was prepared having 5% DOT g/v in water. A mixedformulation (“DOT+C8 combo”) was prepared from the C8 only formulationwith the addition of 5% DOT g/v (2-5, 2-9). Each test involved 10replicate southern pine stakes utilizing 30 second dip treatments.Treatments 2-4 and 2-8 involved two-step treatments having a 4 hourdrying period after the DOT treatment and before the C8 treatment. Themoldicide ratings provided in Table 2 were based on ratings whereinratings of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 represented 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100%infection, respectively. The FPLSD: Fisher's Protected Least SignificantDifference Ratings values with the same letters are not significant atP<0.05. Formulations containing both C8 and DOT were more effective inpreventing mold than the components alone. The inclusion of a dryingstep between treatments further improved the combination's moldicideactivity. All moldicide assays were conducted via ASTM standard D4445-91(1998) and ASTM D3273-00 (1986).

TABLE 2 Moldicide Assay Ratings after Non-Leached Ratings after 8combined 4 and 8 or Leached weeks incubation week incubation Test priorto Formu- Aver- *FPLSD Aver- *FPLSD # testing lation age P @ 0.05 age P@ 0.05 2-1 Non-leached Untreated 5 a 4.9 a Control 2-2 Non-leached C8only 4.8 a 4.2 a 2-3 Non-leached DOT only 2.8 b 2.8 b 2-4 Non-leachedDOT, 4 hr 0 d 0 d dry, C8 2-5 Non-leached DOT + C8 0.8 c, d 0.8 d, ecombo 2-6 Leached C8 only 2.4 b 1.9 b, c 2-7 Leached DOT only 1.9 b, c1.2 d, e 2-8 Leached DOT, 4 hr 0.7 c, d 0.5 d, e dry, C8 2-9 LeachedDOT + C8 1.6 b, c 1.2 c, d combo *FPLSD: Fisher's Protected LeastSignificant Difference Ratings values with the same letters are notsignificant at P < 0.05

Example 3

A C8 stock formulation was prepared containing 50% C8/20% PE 1198/10%L-lactic acid/20% mineral oil. DOT solutions were prepared containingDOT (0.25%, v/v) in water and DOT (2.00%, v/v) in water. Carriersolutions included water and the two DOT solutions. Test solutions wereprepared with the C8 stock formulation (6% v/v) in water and in the twoDOT solutions. Six groups of southern yellow pine stakes (12 replicates)were dip-treated (30 seconds) with treatments 3-1 through 3-6,inoculated with mold spores, incubated, and examined after 12 weeks(Table 3). The moldicide ratings provided in Table 3 were based onratings wherein ratings of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 represented 20, 40, 60, 80and 100% infection, respectively. The DOT treatments (3-5, 3-6),relative to the water, control (3-1), had no moldicide activity. Becausethe combination of DOT and the C8 treatments (3-3, 3-4) had bettercontrol than the C8 formulation, alone, (3-2) a synergy between C8formulation and DOT was evident.

TABLE 3 Moldicide Assay Treat- Carrier Rating *FPLSD, ment FormulationSolution (12 weeks) P @ 0.05 3-1 Water, control water 3 b 3-2 C8formulation water 0.83 a (6%, v/v) 3-3 C8 formulation DOT 0.58 a (6%,v/v) (0.25%, v/v) 3-4 C8 formulation DOT 0 A (6%, v/v) (2.00%, v/v) 3-5DOT (0.25%, v/v) 3.4 B 3-6 DOT (2.00%, v/v) 3.33 B *FPLSD: Fisher'sProtected Least Significant Difference Ratings values with the sameletters are not significant at P < 0.05

Example 4

A C8 stock formulation was prepared containing 50% C8/20% PE 1198/10%L-lactic acid/20% mineral oil. A C9 stock formulation was preparedcontaining 50% C9/20% PE 1198/10% L-lactic acid/20% mineral oil. A boricacid stock solution was prepared containing boric acid (0.25%, v/v) inwater. Six groups of southern yellow pine stakes (12 replicates) weredip-treated (30 seconds) with treatments 4-1 through 4-6, inoculatedwith mold spores, incubated, and examined after 12 weeks. The moldicideratings provided in Table 4 were based on ratings wherein ratings of 1,2, 3, 4 and 5 represented 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% infection,respectively.

The boric acid treatment (4-6), alone, relative to the water control(4-1), had no moldicide activity. Because C8 and C9 formulations (4-2,4-4), alone, had less moldicide activity than the combination of boricacid and C8 (or C9) formulations (4-3, 4-5), a synergy between C8 (C9)and boric acid was demonstrated. Therefore, DOT (Table 3) or boric acid(Table 4), as carrier solutions, appeared to be beneficial over water.Boric acid or DOT, alone, had no moldicide activity at 12 weeks. Thedata shows improvement of fatty acid-based moldicide activity byinclusion of a borate and the combination is synergistic.

TABLE 4 Moldicide Assay Treat- Carrier Rating * FPLSD, ment CompositionSolution (at 12 weeks) P @ 0.05, 4-1 water, control water 3.5 A 4-2 C8formulation water 0.9 B (6%, v/v) 4-3 C8 formulation boric acid 0.33 B(6%, v/v) (0.25%, v/v) 4-4 C9 formulation water 0.8 B (6%, v/v) 4-5 C9formulation boric acid 0.33 B (6%, v/v) (0.25%, v/v) 4-6 boric acid 3.91A (0.25%, v/v) * FPLSD: Fisher's Protected Least Significant DifferenceRatings values with the same letters are not significant at P < 0.05

Example 5

A first stock formulation was prepared containing 62.31% C9, 10% PE1198, 4.5% boric acid, 2% Cu gluconate, 3.2% water, and 18% glycerol. Asecond stock formulation was prepared containing 50% C8, 1.41% Columbusunmodified lecithin #750, 4.5% boric acid, 2% Cu gluconate, 3.2% water,0.89% sodium dodecyl sulfate, and 38% glycerol. A third stockformulation was prepared containing 55% C8, 15% PE 1198, 15% 6915, 1.5%boric acid, 6% glycerol, and 7.5% mineral oil. Aqueous treatmentformulations were prepared (stock formulation=12%, v/v) by diluting thethree formulations with water. Replicate sets of 12 southern yellow pinestakes/treatment group were subjected to a vacuum treatment and drained.A control set of 12 stakes (Table 5, 5-7) was similarly vacuum treatedwith water, instead of a diluted stock formulation (treatments 5-1 to5-6). Test samples associated with treatments 5-1 through 5-3 wereleached prior to exposure to mold infection, whereas the test samplesassociated with treatments 5-4 to 5-7, were not leached. Leachinginvolved contact with distilled water, with periodic changes of thewater, for a period of two weeks (American Wood Protection Association.2009, Standard AWPA E11-06).

After the stakes had been exposed to mold infection for 12 weeks, thecondition of each stake was evaluated and an average rating provided.The moldicide ratings provided in Table 5 were based on ratings whereinratings of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 represented 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100%infection, respectively. Relative to the water control (5-7) andnon-leached, treated blocks (5-4 to 5-6), moldicide activities for theleached blocks (5-1 to 5-3) were maintained and not lost after leaching.

TABLE 5 Moldicide Assay Leached/ Test Non- Rating *FPLSD, # LeachedTreatment 12 weeks P @ 0.05, 5-1 Leached 12% (62.31% C9/10% PE 1198/4.5%boric 0.5 a acid/2% Cu gluconate/3.2% water/18% glycerol), vacuum treat,drain/dry (overnight) 5-2 Leached 12% (50% C8/1.41% #750/4.5% boric 0.16a acid/2% Cu gluconate/3.2% water/0.89% SDS/38% glycerol), vacuum treat,drain/dry (overnight) 5-3 Leached 12% (55% C8/15% PE 1198/15% 6915/1.5%boric 0 a acid/6% glycerol/7.5% mineral oil), vacuum treat, drain/dry(overnight) 5-4 Non- 12% (62.31% C9/10% PE 1198/4.5% boric acid; 2% 0.58a leached Cu gluconate/3.2% water/18% glycerol), vacuum treat, drain/dry(overnight) 5-5 Non- 12% (50% C8/1.41% #750/4.5% boric acid/2% Cu 0 aleached gluconate/3.2% water/0.89% SDS/38% glycerol), vacuum treat,drain/dry (overnight) 5-6 Non- 12% (55% C8/15% PE 1198/15% 6915/1.5%boric 0 a leached acid/6% glycerol/7.5% mineral oil), vacuum treat,drain/dry (overnight) 5-7 Non- water control 2.25 b leached *FPLSD:Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference Ratings values with thesame letters are not significant at P < 0.05

Example 6

Three stock treatment formulations were prepared. The first formulation(F−1) contained 60% C8, 20% PE1198, 15% mineral oil, 1% boric acid, 4%glycerol. The second formulation (F-2) contained 50% C8, 20% PE 1198,10% L-lactic acid (88%), and 20% mineral oil. The third formulation(F-3) contained DOT (5%, g/v) in water. Formulation F-3 was used withoutfurther dilution. A 12% (v/v) formulation based on F-1 was prepared bydilution with water. A 6% (v/v) formulation based on F-2 was prepared.The treatment for 6-5 (control) was water (Table 6). Twelve replicatesouthern yellow pine stakes were used for each treatment group. Fortreatment 6-1 and 6-3, the 12%, v/v, solution of F-1 was used at reducedpressure. For treatment 6-2 and 6-4, stakes were first treated atreduced pressure with F-3, air dried for 30 minutes and then furthertreated at reduced pressure with the F-2 formulation (6%, v/v). Allreduced pressure treatments were for 30 minutes. The stakes intreatments 6-1 and 6-2 were leached by placing the stakes in distilledwater for two weeks with periodic replacement with fresh distilledwater. The stakes in treatments 6-3, 6-4 and 6-5 were not leached. Aftertreatment, stakes were inoculated with spores from a mold consortium,incubated for 12 weeks and then evaluated for presence of moldinfection. The moldicide ratings provided in Table 6 were based onratings wherein ratings of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 represented 20, 40, 60, 80and 100% infection, respectively.

Because moldicide activity for each treatment was essentially the samefor leached and unleached stakes, sufficient formulation ingredientswere retained and not lost from treated stakes during exposure to water.Specifically, vacuum treatments of borate/fatty acid (treatments 6-2,6-4) showed that a DOT pretreatment, followed by air drying and thenapplication of a C8 formulation completely controlled mold growth at 12weeks, for both leached and un-leached samples. Combining C8 and boricacid in a single formulation (treatments 6-1, 6-3) also had excellentcontrol for both leached and un-leached blocks. Formulation dilutions inwater (treatment solutions) were homogeneous and stable.

TABLE 6 Moldicide Assay Leached/ * FPLSD Un- Rating P @ TreatmentFormulation leached (12 weeks) 0.05, 6-1 12% F-1 [60% C8/20% Leached 0.1a PE1198/15% mineral oil/5% boric acid, glycerol (20% boric acid: 80%glycerol)] 6-2 F-3 [5% DOT] followed by 6% F- Leached 0 a 2 [50% C8/20%PE 1198/10% L- lactic acid (88%)/20% mineral oil] 6-3 12% F-1 [60%C8/20% Un- 0 a PE1198/15% mineral oil/5% boric leached acid, glycerol(20% boric acid: 80% glycerol)] 6-4 F-3 [5% DOT] followed by 6% F-2 Un-0 a [50% C8/20% PE 1198/10% L- leached lactic acid (88%)/20% mineraloil] 6-5 water, control Un- 3.1 b leached * FPLSD: Fisher's ProtectedLeast Significant Difference Ratings values with the same letters arenot significant at P < 0.05

Example 7

Three stock formulations were prepared. The first stock formulationcontained 50% C8, 14.8% mineral oil, 10% PE 1198, 10% 6915, 2% boricacid, 8% glycerol, 2.0% Cu gluconate and 3.2% water. The second stockformulation contained 50% C8/C10 mixture (60:40), 20% PE 1198, and 30%mineral oil. The third stock formulation contained 50% C8, 20% PE 1198,and 30% mineral oil. As noted in Table 7, test formulations (6% and 12%)were made by diluting the stock formulations with water. Twelvereplicates of southern yellow pine stakes were treated with each testformulation (7-1 through 7-12) and the water, control (7-13) at reducedpressure (room temperature). The stakes from test 7-1 through 7-6 wereleached by placing the stakes in distilled water for two weeks withperiodic replacement with fresh distilled water. The stakes intreatments 7-7 through 7-12 were not leached. After full treatment thestakes were exposed to mold infection for 8 weeks and evaluated. Themoldicide ratings provided in Table 7 were based on ratings whereinratings of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 represented 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100%infection, respectively.

Overall, based on good mold protection in leached stakes (7-1 to 7-6),essentially all or nearly all fatty acid based formulations (includingtreatments 7-1, 7-2, containing boric acid), were retained afterextensive leaching with water.

TABLE 7 Moldicide Assay Leached/ Average Non- Rate Rating TestFormulation Leached (%, v/v) (8 weeks) 7-1 50% C8/14.8% mineral oil/10%PE Leached 6 1.5 1198/10% 6915/2% boric acid/8% glycerol/2.0% Cugluconate/ 3.2% water 7-2 50% C8/14.8% mineral oil/10% PE Leached 120.08 1198/10% 6915/2% boric acid/8% glycerol/2.0% Cu gluconate/ 3.2%water 7-3 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198/30% Leached 6 0.16 mineral oil 7-4 50%C8, C10/20% PE 1198/30% Leached 12 0 mineral oil 7-5 50% C8/20% PE1198/30% mineral oil Leached 6 0.08 7-6 50% C8/20% PE 1198/30% mineraloil Leached 12 0 7-7 50% C8/14.8% mineral oil/10% PE Non- 6 0.161198/10% 6915/2% boric acid/8% Leached glycerol/2.0% Cu gluconate/ 3.2%water 7-8 50% C8/14.8% mineral oil/10% PE Non- 12 0 1198/10% 6915/2%boric acid/8% Leached glycerol/2.0% Cu gluconate/ 3.2% water 7-9 50% C8,C10/20% PE 1198/30% Non- 6 0 mineral oil Leached 7-10 50% C8, C10/20% PE1198/30% Non- 12 0 mineral oil Leached 7-11 50% C8/20% PE 1198/30%mineral oil Non- 6 0 Leached 7-12 50% C8/20% PE 1198/30% mineral oilNon- 12 0 Leached 7-13 water, control 3.25

Example 8

Three formulations were prepared. Formulation 1 contained 50% C8, 20% PE1198, 10% L-lactic acid, and 20% mineral oil. Formulation 2 contained50% C8, 14.8% mineral oil, 10% PE 1198, 10% 6915, 2% boric acid, 8%glycerol, 2.0% copper gluconate, and 3.2% water. Formulation 3 contained50% C8, 10% mineral oil, 10% PE 1198, 10% 6915, 14.8% DOT, 2.0% coppergluconate, and 3.2% water. The three formulations were utilized in 4distinct treatments. Treatment #1 involved treatment of wood blocks withan aqueous solution of DOT (5%, g/v) followed by treatment withformulation #1 (6%, v/v) diluted with water; treatment #2 involvedtreatment of wood blocks with formulation #1 (6%, v/v) diluted withwater; treatment #3 involved treatment of wood blocks with formulation#2 (6%, v/v) diluted with water; and treatment #4 involved treatment ofwood blocks with formulation #3 (6%, v/v) diluted with water. The woodenblocks were treated according to treatments #1-4 with the specifiedformulations at reduced pressure [26 psi (550 mm Hg)] for 30 minutes.

Five replicate blocks of southern yellow pine (G. trabeum, P. placenta)and sweet gum (T. versicolor) were utilized for each treatment group andwere inoculated with the designated strain of decay fungi. Tests werecarried out according to Standard Method of Testing Wood Preservativesby Laboratory Soil-Block Cultures (AWPA E-10). The weight loss for eachof the blocks was determined after 3 months. The results are providedbelow in Table 8.

TABLE 8 Control of Decay Fungi Percent weight loss (3 months) G. trabeumP. placenta T. versicolor Treatment Average P@0.05 Average P@0.05Average P@0.05 Untreated 35.12 c 22.13 a 64.05 e Control #8-1 3.6 a 4.25a 3.98 a #8-2 11.63 b 10.57 a 50.8 d #8-3 5.1 a 3.35 a 40.12 c #8-413.22 b 4.14 a 28.95 b *FPLSD: Fisher's Protected Least SignificantDifference Ratings values with the same letters are not significant at P< 0.05 Gloeophyllum trabeum-MAD617: brown rot Postia placenta-MAD698:brown rot Trametes versicolor-MAD697: white rot

Example 9

Three formulations were utilized in this example. The first included amixture containing 50% of a 60:40 mixture of C8:C10 (caprylic acid:capric acid), 20% PE 1198 (PE 1198LA is a phosphate ester emulsifieravailable from Huntsman Chemical), and 30% mineral oil. The secondformulation contained 50% of a 60:40 mixture of C8:C10, 20% PE 1198, and20% mineral oil, and 10% of a solution containing DOT in glycerol (20%DOT, g/v in glycerol). The third formulation contained 50% of a 60:40mixture of C8:C10, 20% PE 1198, and 30% of a solution containing DOT inglycerol (20% DOT, g/v in glycerol). Finally, a 1.00% (v/v) aqueousmixture containing the commercial wood preservative Kop-coat NP-1 wasprepared. Kop-coat NP-1 is an emulsion containing didecyl dimethylammonium chloride and 3-iodo-2-propynyl butyl carbamate. Kop-Coat is aregistered trademark of Kop-Coat, Inc. located at 436 Seventh Avenue1850 Koppers Building Pittsburgh Pa. 15219. The first three formulations(9-2 to 9-4) were diluted with water at a dilution rate of 9% (v/v). TheKop-coat NP-1 formulation was used without further dilution. Theformulations were applied to 12 replicate southern yellow pinestakes/treatment group utilizing 30 second dip treatments. The treatedstakes were exposed to a mold inoculum and then evaluated at 4 weeks andat 8 weeks. Stakes treated with formulations containing fatty acids, DOTand an emulsifier (9-3 and 9-4) demonstrated better control of mold thanstakes treated with a formulation containing only a fatty acid and anemulsifier (9-2) or the stakes treated with the commercial preservative(9-5).

TABLE 9 Moldicide Assay Dilution Rating Rating Rate Average Average TestTest Formulation (%, v/v) (week 4) (week 8) 9-1 Water, control 2.25 1.759-2 50% C8, C10/20% PE 9 0.75 0.83 1198LA/30% mineral oil 9-3 50% C8,C10/20% PE 9 0 0.08 1198LA/20% mineral oil/10% glycerol, DOT 9-4 50% C8,C10/20% PE 9 0.5 0.33 1198LA/30% glycerol, DOT 9-5 Kop-coat NP-1  1* 10.92 *Manufacturer's Recommended Rate

Example 10 Control of Sapstain (at 12 Weeks)

Sapstain discoloration of stored lumber can be controlled moreeffectively using a C8/C10 formulation when combined with disodiumoctaborate tetrahydrate or DOT (Table 10). Whereas, a 12%, v/v,application rate of a formulation (treatment 2) is very effective,addition of DOT/glycerol further reduces mold infection and achievescomplete control at 12 weeks (treatments 4, 5).

TABLE 10 Sapstain Assay Rate Treatments (v/v) Rating 10-1 Water, control2.25 10-2 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30% mineral 12% 0.25 oil 10-3 50%C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/20% mineral 12% 0.16 oil/2% DOT/8% glycerol 10-450% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/10% mineral 12% 0 oil/4% DOT/16% glycerol 10-550% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/6% DOT, 24% 12% 0 glycerol 12 replicatesouthern yellow pine stakes/treatment group 30 second dip treatments

Example 11 Control of Mold Fungi

More efficient control of mold fungi was observed when the same C8, C10formulation (Table 10) was combined with DOT. Two application rates (3and 12%, v/v) of each formulation were tested and ratings were recordedat 12 weeks (Table 11).

TABLE 11 Moldicide Assay Rate Treatments (% v/v) Rating 11-1 Water,control 2 11-2 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30% mineral 3 1.33 oil 11-3 50%C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30% mineral 12 0.33 oil 11-4 50% C8, C10/20% PE1198LA/10% mineral 3 0.58 oil/4% DOT/16% glycerol 11-5 50% C8, C10/20%PE 1198LA/10% mineral 12 0.25 oil/4% DOT/16% glycerol 30 second diptreatments

Example 12 Control of Mold Fungi

Comparison of moldicide activity of a C9 formulation diluted into water(Table 12, treatment 2) and also diluted into a DOT solution at 1%, g/v(treatment 3) revealed that DOT increased moldicide activity. The C9formulation had less activity when diluted in water (treatment 2).Because DOT, alone (treatment 4), had no moldicide activity, relative tothe water control (treatment 1), synergy between the C9 formulation andDOT was shown.

TABLE 12 Moldicide Assay Carrier Treatments* Solution Rating 12-1 Water,control water 2.42 12-2 70% C9/20% Emsorb 6915/10% PE 1198 water 0.4212-3 70% C9/20% Emsorb 6915/10% PE 1198 DOT** 0.08 12-4 No fatty acidformulation DOT** 2.58 *6%, v/v, rate of C9 formulation applied **DOT at1%, g/v, used as carrier solution 12 replicate southern yellow pinestakes/treatment group 30 second dip treatments

Example 13

Substituting DOT/glycerol for mineral oil in a C8, C10 formulation(Table 13: treatment 4) is more potent than only using mineral oil as adiluent (treatment 2). A blend of mineral oil and DOT (treatment 3) hadeven better moldicide activity.

TABLE 13 Moldicide Assay Treatments Rate (v/v) Rating 13-1 Water,control 1.75 13-2 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30% mineral 9% 0.83 oil 13-350% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/20% mineral 9% 0.08 oil/2% DOT/ 8% glycerol13-4 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/6% DOT, 9% 0.33 24% glycerol 12 replicatesouthern yellow pine stakes/treatment group 30 second dip treatments

Example 14

An adjuvant such as Hasten (methylated seed oil) can facilitatepesticide activity of a fatty acid-based formulation. Such a combinationwas tested using water (treatment 3), DOT (treatments 4, 5) and boricacid (treatment 6) as carrier systems (Table 14). Enhancement of the C8formulation and Hasten (treatment 3) by DOT at 0.96 and 1.92%, g/v, andby boric acid at 0.48%, v/v, was very effective. None of the controlgroups (treatments 1-2, 7-10 had moldicide activity. Synergy between theC8 formulation and a borate (both DOT and boric acid) was shown.

TABLE 14 Moldicide Assay Rating Treatments Adjuvant Carrier (12 weeks)14-1 Water, control water 3 14-2 Water, control Hasten** water 4.75 14-3C8 formulation* Hasten** water 1.42 14-4 C8 formulation* Hasten** 0.96%DOT 0.08 14-5 C8 formulation* Hasten** 1.92% DOT 0.5 14-6 C8formulation* Hasten** 0.48% Boric 0.58 Acid 14-7 1.92%, g/v, DOTHasten** water 3.83 14-8 0.48%, g/v, boric Hasten** water 4.33 14-91.92%, g/v, DOT water 3.83 14-10 0.48%, g/v, boric water 4.58 *84.5%C8/1.41% K-EML lecithin/14.1% propionic acid (application rate of C8formulation was 6%, v/v, in water) **Wilbur Ellis Hasten used at 2%,v/v, application rate 12 replicate southern yellow pine stakes/treatmentgroup 30 second dip treatments

Example 15

Formulations 15-2 through 15-11 were prepared from two glycerol-basedstock solutions containing 20% boric acid and 20% DOT, respectfully. Theformulations illustrated in Table 15 were diluted with distilled waterto provide 18% aqueous solutions for treatment. PE 1198LA is a phosphateester emulsifier available from Huntsman Chemical. Six replicates ofsouthern yellow pine stakes were treated with each test formulation(15-1 through 15-11) and the water, control (15-1) at reduced pressure(room temperature, 25 psi, 70 minutes). The stakes from test 15-1through 15-11 were leached by placing the stakes in distilled water fortwo weeks with periodic replacement with fresh distilled water. Afterfull treatment the stakes were inoculated with a three strain inoculum(A. niger 2.242, P. chrysogenum PH02, and Trichoderma viride 20476),incubated for 4 weeks, and evaluated. The moldicide ratings provided inTable 15 were based on ratings wherein ratings of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5represented 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% infection, respectively. Each ofthe formulations provided very good mold protection in leached stakes(15-2 to 15-11).

TABLE 15 Formulations containing two Borates in Combination with FattyAcids (3 Strain Inoculum) Mold Test# Treatments Rating* 15-1 Distilledwater, control 1 15-2 50% C6/20% PE 1198LA/30% BORIC, GLYCEROL 0 15-350% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30% BORIC, GLYCEROL 0.16 15-4 50% C8/20% PE1198LA/30% BORIC, GLYCEROL 0 15-5 50% C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% BORIC,GLYCEROL 0 15-6 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30% BORIC, 0 GLYCEROL 15-7 50%C6/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, GLYCEROL 0 15-8 50% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT,GLYCEROL 0 15-9 50% C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, GLYCEROL 0 15-10 50%C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, GLYCEROL 0 15-11 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30%DOT, 0 GLYCEROL *Mold ratings: 0 = no mold, 1 = 20% mold, 3 = 60% mold,4 = 80% mold, 5 = 100% mold

Example 16

Formulations 16-2 through 16-11 were prepared from two glycerol-basedstock solutions containing 20% boric acid and 20% DOT, respectfully. Theformulations illustrated in Table 16 were diluted with distilled waterto provide 18% aqueous solutions for treatment. PE 1198LA is a phosphateester emulsifier available from Huntsman Chemical. Six replicates ofsouthern yellow pine stakes were treated with each test formulation(16-1 through 16-11) and the water, control (16-1) at reduced pressure(room temperature, 25 psi, 70 minutes). The stakes from test 16-1through 16-11 were leached by placing the stakes in distilled water fortwo weeks with periodic replacement with fresh distilled water. Afterfull treatment the stakes were inoculated with a four strain inoculum(A. niger 2.242, P. chrysogenum PH02, Trichoderma viride 20476, andAlternaria alternata), incubated for 4 weeks, and evaluated. Themoldicide ratings provided in Table 16 were based on ratings whereinratings of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 represented 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100%infection, respectively. Each of the formulations provided very goodmold protection in leached stakes (16-2 to 16-11).

TABLE 16 Two Borates in Combination with Fatty Acids (4 Strain Inoculum)Mold Test# Treatments Rating* 16-1 Distilled water, control 1.16 16-250% C6/20% PE 1198LA/30% BORIC, GLYCEROL 0 16-3 50% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30%BORIC, GLYCEROL 0.16 16-4 50% C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% BORIC, GLYCEROL 016-5 50% C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% BORIC, GLYCEROL 0.16 16-6 50% C8, C10/20%PE 1198LA/30% BORIC, 0 GLYCEROL 16-7 50% C6/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT,GLYCEROL 0 16-8 50% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, GLYCEROL 0 16-9 50% C8/20%PE 1198LA/30% DOT, GLYCEROL 0 16-10 50% C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT,GLYCEROL 0 16-11 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, 0.16 GLYCEROL *Moldratings: 0 = no mold, 1 = 20% mold, 3 = 60% mold, 4 = 80% mold, 5 = 100%mold

Example 17

Formulations 17-2 through 17-4 were prepared from two glycerol-basedstock solutions containing 20% boric acid and 20% DOT. The formulationsillustrated in Table 17 were diluted with distilled water to provide 18%aqueous solutions for treatment. PE 1198LA is a phosphate esteremulsifier available from Huntsman Chemical. Twelve replicates ofsouthern yellow pine stakes were treated with each test formulation(17-2 through 17-4) and the water, control (17-1) at reduced pressure(room temperature, 25 psi, 70 minutes). The stakes from test 17-1through 17-4 were leached by placing the stakes in distilled water fortwo weeks with periodic replacement with fresh distilled water. Afterfull treatment the stakes were inoculated with a four strain inoculum(A. niger 2.242, P. chrysogenum PH02, Trichoderma viride 20476, andAlternaria alternata), the moldicide ratings were determined at 4 weeks,8 weeks, and 12 weeks and the results are provided in Table 17.Evaluation provided a rating of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for a resulting 0,20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% infection, respectively. Each of theformulations provided very good mold protection in leached stakes (17-2to 17-4).

TABLE 17 Two Borates in Combination with C8 and C9 Fatty Acids (4 StrainInoculum) Mold Rating(Average)* Test# Treatments 4 wk 8 wk 12 wk 17-1Control, water 3.44 3 3.44 17-2 50% C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0.11 0.33 0.11BORIC- GLYCEROL 17-3 60% C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 0 0 MINERAL OIL/2%BORIC/8%, GLYCEROL 17-4 50% C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0.11 0.16 0.11 DOT-GLYCEROL *Mold ratings: 0 = no mold, 1 = 20% mold, 3 = 60% mold, 4 = 80%mold, 5 = 100% mold

Example 18

Formulations 18-2 through 18-7 were prepared from two glycerol-basedstock solutions containing 20% boric acid. The formulations illustratedin Table 18 were diluted with distilled water to provide 6, 12, and 18%aqueous solutions for treatment. C8 and C9 formulations, including thesame concentrations of PE 11198LA and boric/glycerol, were compared. PE1198LA is a phosphate ester emulsifier available from Huntsman Chemical.Twelve replicates of southern yellow pine stakes were treated with eachtest formulation (18-2 through 18-7) and the water, control (18-1) atreduced pressure (room temperature, 25 psi, 70 minutes). After fulltreatment the stakes were inoculated with a four strain inoculum (A.niger 2.242, P. chrysogenum PH02, Trichoderma viride 20476, andAlternaria alternata) and incubated. Stakes were evaluated at 4 weeks, 8weeks, and at 12 weeks to provide the moldicide ratings in Table 18.Evaluation provided a rating of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for a resulting 0,20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% infection, respectively. Each of theformulations provided very good mold protection in leached stakes (18-2to 18-7).

TABLE 18 C8 and C9 formulations with Boric Acid at 3 Application Rates(4 Strain Inoculum) Mold Rating (average)* Rate 4 wk 8 wk 12 wk Test#Vacuum Treatments (v/v) Avg Avg Avg 18-1 Water, control 3 3.75 3.92 18-250% C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% 6 0 0 0 BORIC- GLYCEROL 18-3 50% C9/20% PE1198LA/30% 12 0 0 0 BORIC- GLYCEROL 18-4 50% C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% 18 0 00 BORIC, GLYCEROL 18-5 50% C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% 6 0 0 0 BORIC, GLYCEROL18-6 50% C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% 12 0 0 0.08 BORIC, GLYCEROL 18-7 50%C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% 18 0 0 0 BORIC, GLYCEROL *Mold ratings: 0 = nomold, 1 = 20% mold, 3 = 60% mold, 4 = 80% mold, 5 = 100% mold

Example 19

Formulations 19-2 through 19-11 were prepared from two glycerol-basedstock solutions containing 20% boric acid and 20% DOT, respectfully. PE1198LA is a phosphate ester emulsifier available from Huntsman Chemical.Six replicates of southern yellow pine stakes (19-1 through 19-11) weregiven a 30 second dip treatment in a formulation at room temperature.After full treatment the stakes were inoculated with a four straininoculum (A. niger 2.242, P. chrysogenum PH02, Trichoderma viride 20476,and Alternaria alternata), incubated. Stakes were evaluated at 4 weeksand at 8 weeks to provide the moldicide ratings reproduced in Table 19.Evaluation provided a rating of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for a resulting 0,20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% infection, respectively. Each of theformulations provided good to very good mold protection in treatedstakes (19-2 to 19-11).

TABLE 19 Formulations of Fatty Acids with Borates Utilizing DipTreatment (4 Strain Inoculum) Mold Rating(Avg)* Test# Treatments 4 wk 8wk 19-1 Distilled water, control 2.16 2.83 19-2 50% C6/20% PE 1198LA/30%BORIC, 0 0 GLYCEROL 19-3 50% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30% BORIC, 0 0 GLYCEROL19-4 50% C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% BORIC, 0 0 GLYCEROL 19-5 50% C9/20% PE1198LA/30% BORIC, 0 0.5 GLYCEROL 19-6 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30%BORIC, 0.16 0.75 GLYCEROL 19-7 50% C6/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, 0.16 0.16GLYCEROL 19-8 50% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, 0 0 GLYCEROL 19-9 50% C8/20%PE 1198LA/30% DOT, 0 0 GLYCEROL 19-10 50% C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, 0 0GLYCEROL 19-11 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, 0 0.16 GLYCEROL *Moldratings: 0 = no mold, 1 = 20% mold, 3 = 60% mold, 4 = 80% mold, 5 = 100%mold

Example 20

Formulations 20-2 through 20-11 were prepared from two glycerol-basedstock solutions containing 20% boric acid and 20% DOT, respectfully. PE1198LA is a phosphate ester emulsifier available from Huntsman Chemical.Six replicates of southern yellow pine stakes (20-1 through 20-1) weregiven 30 second dip treatments in a formulation at room temperature.After full treatment the stakes were inoculated with a three straininoculum (A. niger 2.242, P. chrysogenum PH02, and Trichoderma viride20476) and incubated. Stakes were evaluated at 4 weeks and at 8 weeks toprovide the moldicide ratings reproduced in Table 20. Evaluationprovided a rating of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for a resulting 0, 20, 40, 60,80 and 100% infection, respectively. Overall, the formulations providedimproved mold protection in treated stakes (20-2 to 20-11).

TABLE 20 Formulations of Fatty Acids with Borates Utilizing DipTreatment (3 Strain Inoculum) Mold Rating(Avg)* Test# Treatments 4 wk 8wk 20-1 Distilled water, control 3.16 3.66 20-2 50% C6/20% PE 1198LA/30%BORIC, 0 0 GLYCEROL 20-3 50% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30% BORIC, 0 0 GLYCEROL20-4 50% C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% BORIC, 0 1.16 GLYCEROL 20-5 50% C9/20% PE1198LA/30% BORIC, 0 0.83 GLYCEROL 20-6 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30%BORIC, 1 0.66 GLYCEROL 20-7 50% C6/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, 0 0 GLYCEROL20-8 50% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, 0 0.16 GLYCEROL 20-9 50% C8/20% PE1198LA/30% DOT, 0 0 GLYCEROL 20-10 50% C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, 0 0.16GLYCEROL 20-11 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30% DOT, 0 0 GLYCEROL *Moldratings: 0 = no mold, 1 = 20% mold, 3 = 60% mold, 4 = 80% mold, 5 = 100%mold

Example 21

Formulations 21-2 through 21-11 were prepared from two glycerol-basedstock solutions containing 20% boric acid and 20% DOT, respectfully. Theformulations illustrated in Table 21 were diluted with distilled waterto provide 18% aqueous solutions for treatment. PE 1198LA is a phosphateester emulsifier available from Huntsman Chemical. Twelve replicates ofsouthern yellow pine stakes were treated with each test formulation(21-2 through 21-11) and the water, control (22-1) at reduced pressure(room temperature, 25 psi, 70 minutes). The stakes from test 21-1through 21-11 were leached by placing the stakes in distilled water fortwo weeks with periodic replacement with fresh distilled water. Afterfull treatment the stakes were inoculated with a four strain inoculum(A. niger 2.242, P. chrysogenum PH02, Trichoderma viride 20476, andAlternaria alternata), incubated and evaluated at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, andat 12 weeks. The moldicide ratings provided in Table 21 were based onratings wherein ratings of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 represented 0, 20, 40,60, 80 and 100% infection, respectively. Selected formulations,particularly 21-8 through 21-11 provided good mold protection in leachedstakes (21-2 to 21-11).

TABLE 21 Formulations of Fatty Acids with Borates at 3 Months (4 StrainInoculum) Mold Rating(Avg)* Test# Treatments 4 wk 8 wk 12 wk 21-1Distilled water, control 1.16 2 2.5 21-2 50% C6/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0.160.66 2.6 BORIC, GLYCEROL 21-3 50% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 0 0.16 BORIC,GLYCEROL 21-4 50% C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0.16 0.16 1 BORIC, GLYCEROL 21-550% C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 0 0.5 BORIC, GLYCEROL 21-6 50% C8, C10/20% PE1198LA/30% 0 0.16 1.66 BORIC, GLYCEROL 21-7 50% C6/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 01.33 DOT, GLYCEROL 21-8 50% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 0 0 DOT, GLYCEROL21-9 50% C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 0 0 DOT, GLYCEROL 21-10 50% C9/20% PE1198LA/30% 0 0 0 DOT, GLYCEROL 21-11 50% C8, C10/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 0 0DOT, GLYCEROL *Mold ratings: 0 = no mold, 1 = 20% mold, 3 = 60% mold, 4= 80% mold, 5 = 100% mold

Example 22

Formulations 22-2 through 22-11 were prepared from two glycerol-basedstock solutions containing 20% boric acid and 20% DOT, respectfully. Theformulations illustrated in Table 22 were diluted with distilled waterto provide 18% aqueous solutions for treatment. PE 1198LA is a phosphateester emulsifier available from Huntsman Chemical. Twelve replicates ofsouthern yellow pine stakes were treated with each test formulation(22-2 through 22-11) and the water, control (22-1) at reduced pressure(room temperature, 25 psi, 70 minutes). The stakes from test 21-1through 21-11 were leached by placing the stakes in distilled water fortwo weeks with periodic replacement with fresh distilled water. Afterfull treatment the stakes were inoculated with a three strain inoculum(A. niger 2.242, P. chrysogenum PH02, and Trichoderma viride 20476),incubated and evaluated at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and at 12 weeks. Themoldicide ratings provided in Table 22 were based on ratings whereinratings of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 represented 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100%infection, respectively. Each of the formulations provided good moldprotection in leached stakes (22-3 to 22-11) at 4 and 8 weeks. However,treatments 22-5, and 22-8 through 22-10 were quite effective at 12weeks.

TABLE 22 Formulations of Fatty Acids with Borates at 3 Months (3 StrainInoculum) Mold Rating(Avg)* Test# Treatments 4 wk 8 wk 12 wk 22-1Distilled water, control 1 2.5 2.66 22-2 50% C6/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0.83 33.66 BORIC, GLYCEROL 22-3 50% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0.16 0.5 2.33 BORIC,GLYCEROL 22-4 50% C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 0 1 BORIC, GLYCEROL 22-5 50%C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 0 0.16 BORIC, GLYCEROL 22-6 50% C8, C10/20% PE1198LA/30% 0.16 0.66 1.33 BORIC, GLYCEROL 22-7 50% C6/20% PE 1198LA/30%0.16 0.16 1.33 DOT, GLYCEROL 22-8 50% C7/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 0 0 DOT,GLYCEROL 22-9 50% C8/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 0 0 DOT, GLYCEROL 22-10 50%C9/20% PE 1198LA/30% 0 0 0 DOT, GLYCEROL 22-11 50% C8, C10/20% PE1198LA/30% 0 0 0.32 DOT, GLYCEROL *Mold ratings: 0 = no mold, 1 = 20%mold, 3 = 60% mold, 4 = 80% mold, 5 = 100% mold

Example 23

Formulations 23-2, 23-4 through 23-6 were prepared from a 20% boric acidsolution in glycerol (80%). PE 1198LA is a phosphate ester emulsifieravailable from Huntsman Chemical. Twelve replicates of southern yellowpine stakes were treated with each test formulation (23-2 through 23-6)and the water, control (23-1) at reduced pressure (room temperature, 25psi, 70 minutes). The stakes from test 23-1 through 23-6 were leached byplacing the stakes in distilled water for two weeks with periodicreplacement with fresh distilled water. After full treatment the stakeswere inoculated with a four strain inoculum (A. niger 2.242, P.chrysogenum PH02, Trichoderma viride 20476, and Alternaria alternata),incubated and evaluated at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and at 12 weeks. Themoldicide ratings provided in Table 23 were based on ratings whereinratings of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 represented 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100%infection, respectively. Each of the formulations provided moldprotection in leached stakes (23-2 to 23-5) at weeks 4 and 8. Treatment23-2 showed complete control at 4, 8 and 12 weeks.

TABLE 23 Formulations of Fatty Acids with Boric Acid and/or Mineral Oil(4 Strain Inoculum) Mold Rating(Avg)* Test# Treatments 4 wk 8 wk 12 wk23-1 Water, control 2.08 4.11 3.3 23-2 60% C8/20% PE 1198LA/10% MO/10% 00 0 BORIC- GLYCEROL 23-3 34.15% C8/29.27% MO/14.63% water/ 0 0.33 1.314.63% PE 1198LA/7.32% 6915 23-4 40% C6/15% 6915/15% PE 1198LA/20% 0 00.77 MO/10% BORIC-GLYCEROL 23-5 40% C8/15% 6915/15% PE 1198LA/20% 0 00.22 MO/10% BORIC- GLYCEROL 23-6 40% C9/15% 6915/15% PE 1198LA/20% 01.22 2.33 MO/10% BORIC- GLYCEROL *Mold ratings: 0 = no mold, 1 = 20%mold, 3 = 60% mold, 4 = 80% mold, 5 = 100% mold

Example 24

Southern Yellow Pine blocks were pressure treated with water (24-1) andthe remaining formulations illustrated in Table 24 (24-2 through 24-6)according to AWPA T1-07 (Processing and Treatment Standard, 2007).Groups of five replicate blocks were each treated with water and theremaining five formulations. Blocks treated with test formulations 24-2and 24-3 were leached with water according to the procedure provided inStandard Leach trial: (E11-06, AWPA, 2009). The remaining wood blockswere not leached. Following the treatments indicated, the blocks weresubjected to a no-choice test against termites (AWPA Standard E1-09,2009). The test results are illustrated below in Table 24. The testresults illustrated below in Table 24 illustrate that both the C8 (24-2)and the C8-C10 combination (24-3) provided a 4 to 5 fold reduction inwood loss, even after leaching. In addition, the C7 (24-4), C8 (24-5),and C9 (24-6) formulations in un-leached blocks provided a 15 to 38 foldreduction in wood loss. Untreated or control blocks (24-1) providedsuffered the loss of more than 75% of the block.

TABLE 24 Control of Termite Consumption of Southern Yellow Pine RateWater (v/v) Leaching Wood in after Block Digest Test# Treatments waterTreatment (%)* 24-1 Water, control No 77 24-2 50% C8/20% PE1198LA/6% 18%Yes 14 DOT/24% glycerol 24-3 50% C8, C10/20% PE1198LA/6% 18% Yes 17DOT/24% glycerol 24-4 80% C7/20% PE1198LA 18% No 5 24-5 80% C8/20%PE1198LA 18% No 4 24-6 80% C9/20% PE1198LA 18% No 2 *Blocks wereevaluated at 16 days after onset of termite incubation of the southernyellow pine blocks.DOT is disodium octaborate tetrahydrate. PE1198LA is a phosphate esteremulsifier available from Huntsman Chemical Company.

While applicant's disclosure has been provided with reference tospecific embodiments above, it will be understood that modifications andalterations in the embodiments disclosed may be made by those practicedin the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.All such modifications and alterations are intended to be covered. Allpublications, patents, and patent applications cited in thisspecification are herein incorporated by reference as if each individualpublication, patent, or patent application was specifically andindividually indicated to be incorporated by reference and set forth inits entirety herein.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A method for protecting a wood product orstructure comprising: (a) providing a wood product, composite, orstructure and composition including a component selected from the groupconsisting of a borate, sorbic acid, and combinations thereof: a fattyacid; water; and an emulsifier, wherein the composition is adapted toprovide an emulsion; and (b) incorporating the composition into the woodproduct, composite, or structure to provide protection from insects,decay fungi, and mold fungi.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein thecomponent selected is a borate and the composition resists leaching fromthe treated wood product or structure upon repeated exposure to water.3. The method of claim 1, wherein the component selected is a borate andincorporating the composition into the wood product, composite, orstructure involves incorporating the composition during manufacture,milling or construction of the wood product, composite, or structure asa preventative protective treatment.
 4. The method of claim 3, whereinincorporating the composition involves contacting the wood product,composite, or structure with the composition in a process involving atreatment selected from the group consisting of a soaking treatment, adipping treatment, a brushing treatment, a spraying treatment, adiffusion treatment, an injection treatment, a vacuum treatment, avacuum-pressure treatment and combinations thereof.
 5. The method ofclaim 3, wherein incorporating is carried out at a reduced pressure, atatmospheric pressure, or at an elevated pressure.
 6. The method of claim3, wherein providing the composition including a borate compoundinvolves providing a borate selected from the group consisting of DOT,boric acid, a boronic acid, and a combination thereof.
 7. The method ofclaim 3, wherein providing the composition including a fatty acidinvolves providing a fatty acid selected from the group consisting ofcaprylic acid, capric acid, hexanoic acid, heptanoic acid, pelargonicacid, and a combination thereof.
 8. The method of claim 1, whereinproviding involves providing a wood product, composite, or structurehaving existing fungal or insect infestations and incorporating thecomposition into the wood product or structure involves a remedialtreatment.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein incorporating thecomposition involves contacting the wood product, composite, orstructure with the composition in a process involving a treatmentselected from the group consisting of a soaking treatment, a dippingtreatment, a brushing treatment, a spraying treatment, a diffusiontreatment, an injection treatment, a vacuum treatment, a vacuum-pressuretreatment and combinations thereof.
 10. The method of claim 8, whereinincorporating is carried out at a reduced pressure, at atmosphericpressure, or at an elevated pressure.
 11. The method of claim 8, whereinproviding the composition including a borate compound involves providinga borate selected from the group consisting of DOT, boric acid, aboronic acid, and a combination thereof.
 12. The method of claim 11,wherein providing the composition including a fatty acid involvesproviding a fatty acid selected from the group consisting of caprylicacid, capric acid, hexanoic acid, heptanoic acid, pelargonic acid, and acombination thereof.
 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the componentselected is sorbic acid and the composition resists leaching from thetreated wood product or structure upon repeated exposure to water. 14.The method of claim 1, wherein the component selected is sorbic acid andincorporating the composition into the wood product, composite, orstructure involves incorporating the composition during manufacture,milling or construction of the wood product, composite or structure as apreventative protective treatment.
 15. The method of claim 14, whereinincorporating the composition involves contacting the wood product,composite, or structure with the composition in a process involving atreatment selected from the group consisting of a soaking treatment, adipping treatment, a brushing treatment, a spraying treatment, adiffusion treatment, an injection treatment, a vacuum treatment, avacuum-pressure treatment and combinations thereof.
 16. The method ofclaim 14, wherein incorporating is carried out at a reduced pressure, atatmospheric pressure, or at an elevated pressure.
 17. The method ofclaim 14, wherein providing the composition including a fatty acidinvolves providing a fatty acid selected from the group consisting ofcaprylic acid, capric acid, hexanoic acid, heptanoic acid, pelargonicacid, and a combination thereof.
 18. The method of claim 13, whereinproviding involves providing a wood product, composite, or structurehaving existing fungal or insect infestations and incorporating thecomposition into the wood product, composite, or structure involves aremedial treatment.
 19. The method of claim 18, wherein incorporatingthe composition involves contacting the wood product, composite, orstructure with the composition in a process involving a treatmentselected from the group consisting of a soaking treatment, a dippingtreatment, a brushing treatment, a spraying treatment, a diffusiontreatment, an injection treatment, a vacuum treatment, a vacuum-pressuretreatment and combinations thereof.
 20. The method of claim 18, whereinincorporating the composition is carried out at a reduced pressure, atatmospheric pressure, or at an elevated pressure.